I originally posted the stuff below in the Empire magazine forum, because I wanted to comment specifically on the amount of coverage Scott Pilgrim has received. However, nobody commented there and it was suggested by a mod that I post here instead. So here it is, ever so lightly edited and now with the not at all surprising discovery that, as predicted, it's received a 5* review! My thoughts on the film remain unchanged, and with one addition - come on Edgar Wright, let's see you drop the zeitgeist-surfing, pop-culture referencing, homaging approach and try something different!

"I haven't posted, or even looked at this board, for a few years, although I've continued to read the magazine every month. However, I've decided to come back - probably only for one post because I'll end getting flamed off again! This is purely a personal view, so bear with me. If you disagree, fair enough.

Scott Pilgrim doesn't interest me at all. In fact everything I've read and seen about it indicates an end product that will be utter garbage - juvenile, puerile drivel of the highest order - a glorified video game (even down to 'Level Complete' etc). I almost think it's trying too hard to be cool - obscure comic book adaptation, Beck, Nigel Godrich etc handling the music, Michael Cera playing a sword-wielding variant of his traditional indie slacker. (Anna Kendrick, Chris Evans, why are you associated with this nonsense?!) There also doesn't seem to be any particular surprises in store either - surely there can be no other outcome than Scott prevailing against Ramona's evil ex-partners and thereby winning 'the game' / the girl? I'm sure I'm not alone in this view. I'll not go and see it when it's released.

But my point here is the amount of coverage that Empire has devoted to this film over the last year, particularly in the latest issue - the cover, a lengthy and adoring main feature, a soundtrack review, plugs for merchandise, an advert on the back cover. All I can say is that, for Empire's sake, I hope that the film lives up to the hype and expectations that have been placed on it, given the amount of coverage it's received. Anything less than a 5* review will seem like a disappointment.

(To be fair to the magazine though, this could be an extreme example of what I consider to be generally the correct approach. Give neutral / positive advanced coverage, allow filmmakers to put their cases across, while reserving the right to criticise the end product if it's no good. A past example would be something like Van Helsing, where Empire received lots of on-set access and there was a hefty cover and main feature a few years ago. Since the actual film was hopeless, it still received the review it deserved. Even in the current magazine, there's an enjoyable interview with Paul Rudd and Steve Carell, where they're plugging a film that's negatively reviewed elsewhere in the same issue. To me this demonstrates journalistic integrity.)

However, Scott Pilgrim seems to me to have had a disproportionate amount of enthusiastic coverage. The flipside naturally is that those who are looking forward to it must think it's great. Fair enough that the magazine enjoys a good relationship with Edgar Wright, and naturally makes good use of access to his sets. But, for what it's worth (correct me if I'm wrong) Scott Pilgrim is basically an American film that happens to have a British director. How's it really different than any other American summer film? It'll stand or fall on US box office returns, whether it's any good or not, and no amount of praise from Empire is going to change that. (Kick-Ass's worldwide box office of only $96 million would suggest that graphic novel adaptations don't have a huge amount of mass appeal. Not that I want to open another debate on quality vs financial returns, but Scott Pilgrim to me is a film that will have a smallish but very passionate audience, rather than breaking records like a conventional blockbuster.)

For the record, I'm certainly not anti-Edgar Wright at all. I love Spaced and Hot Fuzz (although not Shaun Of The Dead). I just think that his film has been given far too much coverage in the magazine, that's all. Hopefully some of you out there will agree? Am I the only person who groans when, on opening a new issue of Empire, I'm confronted by more photos of Michael Cera looking like he does in every other film, or Brandon Routh wearing a truly awful costume and wig?!

Rant over, flame away..."

Belfast, Belfast, Belfast... where do I begin?

Scott Pilgrim Vs The World is a film we've been excited about for a long time. We're delighted that, in our opinion, the film justifies that excitement. But you know from past experience that any implication that we give films favourable reviews in exchange for access will be stomped on immediately. To quote a great man, I am Godzilla, you are Japan. That does not happen, and never will happen.

And as someone who recently found, and re-read the 1999 issue of Empire devoted to the Phantom Meance, I can assure people that no other film has ever recieved what could be even close to the coverage that film had.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

I don’t think I’ll be seeing Scott Pilgrim. Its bound to bring back the crushing disappointment I felt when watching The Smashing Pumpkins “1979” video and realising that it wasn’t, in fact, one of those horrific public service ads about seat-belt neglect.

I don’t bemoan the coverage though. You can’t really. I think I’m just at that age where the only decent use of the word “hip” is when it’s followed by “replacement”. Hum-bug and all that.

And as someone who recently found, and re-read the 1999 issue of Empire devoted to the Phantom Meance, I can assure people that no other film has ever recieved what could be even close to the coverage that film had.

I don’t think I’ll be seeing Scott Pilgrim. Its bound to bring back the crushing disappointment I felt when watching The Smashing Pumpkins “1979” video and realising that it wasn’t, in fact, one of those horrific public service ads about seat-belt neglect.

I don’t bemoan the coverage though. You can’t really. I think I’m just at that age where the only decent use of the word “hip” is when it’s followed by “replacement”. Hum-bug and all that.

That is the thing though - most of the videogame references for instance are from games from the early 90s. The target audience for a lot of the movie are people in their 20s and 30s who grew up with an NES or Mega Drive.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

Posts: 1286
Joined: 18/3/2008 From: San-Diago, which is German for 'Whales virgina'...

quote:

ORIGINAL: macmurphy

I like Edgar Wrights other work but the volume of coverage this juvenile looking tripe has gotten in Empire beggars belief. No surprise that it gets a five star review. You have to justify all that positive advance coverage somehow. Lets wait for the realistic three star review of the DVD in a few months time. Don't believe the hype.

Have you seen it?? Why do you read Empire then?? Why are you on the site??

_____________________________

I just wish stuff like, I don't know, the slow & systemic CRATERING of this country could inspire the same call-to-arms as Batman casting

I like Edgar Wrights other work but the volume of coverage this juvenile looking tripe has gotten in Empire beggars belief. No surprise that it gets a five star review. You have to justify all that positive advance coverage somehow. Lets wait for the realistic three star review of the DVD in a few months time. Don't believe the hype.

Phantom Meance had 87 pages of coverage in Empire and got 4 stars. So you clearly have no idea what you are on about.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

I don't think I'll be seeing Scott Pilgrim. Its bound to bring back the crushing disappointment I felt when watching The Smashing Pumpkins "1979” video and realising that it wasn't, in fact, one of those horrific public service ads about seat-belt neglect.

I don't bemoan the coverage though. You can't really. I think I'm just at that age where the only decent use of the word "hip” is when it's followed by "replacement”. Hum-bug and all that.

That is the thing though - most of the videogame references for instance are from games from the early 90s. The target audience for a lot of the movie are people in their 20s and 30s who grew up with an NES or Mega Drive.

If Speedball 2 and Cannon Fodder aren't referenced then this film is a crock of shit...

_____________________________

Evil Mod 2 - Hail he who has fallen from the sky to deliver us from the terror of the Deadites!

I originally posted the stuff below in the Empire magazine forum, because I wanted to comment specifically on the amount of coverage Scott Pilgrim has received. However, nobody commented there and it was suggested by a mod that I post here instead. So here it is, ever so lightly edited and now with the not at all surprising discovery that, as predicted, it's received a 5* review! My thoughts on the film remain unchanged, and with one addition - come on Edgar Wright, let's see you drop the zeitgeist-surfing, pop-culture referencing, homaging approach and try something different!

"I haven't posted, or even looked at this board, for a few years, although I've continued to read the magazine every month. However, I've decided to come back - probably only for one post because I'll end getting flamed off again! This is purely a personal view, so bear with me. If you disagree, fair enough.

Scott Pilgrim doesn't interest me at all. In fact everything I've read and seen about it indicates an end product that will be utter garbage - juvenile, puerile drivel of the highest order - a glorified video game (even down to 'Level Complete' etc). I almost think it's trying too hard to be cool - obscure comic book adaptation, Beck, Nigel Godrich etc handling the music, Michael Cera playing a sword-wielding variant of his traditional indie slacker. (Anna Kendrick, Chris Evans, why are you associated with this nonsense?!) There also doesn't seem to be any particular surprises in store either - surely there can be no other outcome than Scott prevailing against Ramona's evil ex-partners and thereby winning 'the game' / the girl? I'm sure I'm not alone in this view. I'll not go and see it when it's released.

But my point here is the amount of coverage that Empire has devoted to this film over the last year, particularly in the latest issue - the cover, a lengthy and adoring main feature, a soundtrack review, plugs for merchandise, an advert on the back cover. All I can say is that, for Empire's sake, I hope that the film lives up to the hype and expectations that have been placed on it, given the amount of coverage it's received. Anything less than a 5* review will seem like a disappointment.

(To be fair to the magazine though, this could be an extreme example of what I consider to be generally the correct approach. Give neutral / positive advanced coverage, allow filmmakers to put their cases across, while reserving the right to criticise the end product if it's no good. A past example would be something like Van Helsing, where Empire received lots of on-set access and there was a hefty cover and main feature a few years ago. Since the actual film was hopeless, it still received the review it deserved. Even in the current magazine, there's an enjoyable interview with Paul Rudd and Steve Carell, where they're plugging a film that's negatively reviewed elsewhere in the same issue. To me this demonstrates journalistic integrity.)

However, Scott Pilgrim seems to me to have had a disproportionate amount of enthusiastic coverage. The flipside naturally is that those who are looking forward to it must think it's great. Fair enough that the magazine enjoys a good relationship with Edgar Wright, and naturally makes good use of access to his sets. But, for what it's worth (correct me if I'm wrong) Scott Pilgrim is basically an American film that happens to have a British director. How's it really different than any other American summer film? It'll stand or fall on US box office returns, whether it's any good or not, and no amount of praise from Empire is going to change that. (Kick-Ass's worldwide box office of only $96 million would suggest that graphic novel adaptations don't have a huge amount of mass appeal. Not that I want to open another debate on quality vs financial returns, but Scott Pilgrim to me is a film that will have a smallish but very passionate audience, rather than breaking records like a conventional blockbuster.)

For the record, I'm certainly not anti-Edgar Wright at all. I love Spaced and Hot Fuzz (although not Shaun Of The Dead). I just think that his film has been given far too much coverage in the magazine, that's all. Hopefully some of you out there will agree? Am I the only person who groans when, on opening a new issue of Empire, I'm confronted by more photos of Michael Cera looking like he does in every other film, or Brandon Routh wearing a truly awful costume and wig?!

Rant over, flame away..."

Completely agree. I dont post much here anymore either, but still buy the magazine and came back to see how people were taking the saturation coverage. Glad to see Im not the only one bemused by this hype, and I could have predicted the 5 star review months back. I liked Spaced, loved Hot Fuzz and SOTD but the trailers for this left me cold.

I think this will be filed under '4/5 star reviews after Empire bought into the hype' along with Attack of the Clones and Snakes On A Plane.

I'll wait for the DVD.

< Message edited by Joe -- 16/8/2010 1:49:37 PM >

_____________________________

"Manchester United is the club, it is football. A culture of the “beau jeu”, a philosophy that has been existing for years. How to win with class. I am still madly in love with it." Eric Cantona

Completely agree. I dont post much here anymore either, but still buy the magazine and came back to see how people were taking the saturation coverage. Glad to see Im not the only one bemused by this hype, and I could have predicted the 5 star review months back. I liked Spaced, loved Hot Fuzz and SOTD but the trailers for this left me cold.

I think this will be filed under '4/5 star reviews after Empire bought into the hype' along with Attack of the Clones and Snakes On A Plane.

I'll wait for the DVD.

So you haven't actually seen the film yet?

And Snakes on a Plane was fun.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though

Completely agree. I dont post much here anymore either, but still buy the magazine and came back to see how people were taking the saturation coverage. Glad to see Im not the only one bemused by this hype, and I could have predicted the 5 star review months back. I liked Spaced, loved Hot Fuzz and SOTD but the trailers for this left me cold.

I think this will be filed under '4/5 star reviews after Empire bought into the hype' along with Attack of the Clones and Snakes On A Plane.

I'll see the film if someone I know asks me to join them, but other than that I won't go out of my way. I won't say Edgar Wright is overrated, because apart from the fact that I hate that word I think he does his schtick pretty well. The problem is that the British film industry is so God-awful now that anything half decent, which is all that Shaun and Hot Fuzz were, gets praised to the hilt by British critics and viewers a little more than they deserve, IMO. They're hungry for anything home-grown that isn't terrible. Scott Pilgrim may be an American film, but I think some of that hype has transferred to it because of Wright.

But hey, maybe it's deserved. I just suspect that if I wasn't enamoured with Wright's previous work I won't much care for this. The trailer did not entice me.

I'll see the film if someone I know asks me to join them, but other than that I won't go out of my way. I won't say Edgar Wright is overrated, because apart from the fact that I hate that word I think he does his schtick pretty well. The problem is that the British film industry is so God-awful now that anything half decent, which is all that Shaun and Hot Fuzz were, gets praised to the hilt by British critics and viewers a little more than they deserve, IMO. They're hungry for anything home-grown that isn't terrible. Scott Pilgrim may be an American film, but I think some of that hype has transferred to it because of Wright.

But hey, maybe it's deserved. I just suspect that if I wasn't enamoured with Wright's previous work I won't much care for this. The trailer did not entice me.

Shuan of the Dead and Fuzz also got praised by a lot of American critics as well. But whatevas.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

I originally posted the stuff below in the Empire magazine forum, because I wanted to comment specifically on the amount of coverage Scott Pilgrim has received. However, nobody commented there and it was suggested by a mod that I post here instead. So here it is, ever so lightly edited and now with the not at all surprising discovery that, as predicted, it's received a 5* review! My thoughts on the film remain unchanged, and with one addition - come on Edgar Wright, let's see you drop the zeitgeist-surfing, pop-culture referencing, homaging approach and try something different!

"I haven't posted, or even looked at this board, for a few years, although I've continued to read the magazine every month. However, I've decided to come back - probably only for one post because I'll end getting flamed off again! This is purely a personal view, so bear with me. If you disagree, fair enough.

Scott Pilgrim doesn't interest me at all. In fact everything I've read and seen about it indicates an end product that will be utter garbage - juvenile, puerile drivel of the highest order - a glorified video game (even down to 'Level Complete' etc). I almost think it's trying too hard to be cool - obscure comic book adaptation, Beck, Nigel Godrich etc handling the music, Michael Cera playing a sword-wielding variant of his traditional indie slacker. (Anna Kendrick, Chris Evans, why are you associated with this nonsense?!) There also doesn't seem to be any particular surprises in store either - surely there can be no other outcome than Scott prevailing against Ramona's evil ex-partners and thereby winning 'the game' / the girl? I'm sure I'm not alone in this view. I'll not go and see it when it's released.

But my point here is the amount of coverage that Empire has devoted to this film over the last year, particularly in the latest issue - the cover, a lengthy and adoring main feature, a soundtrack review, plugs for merchandise, an advert on the back cover. All I can say is that, for Empire's sake, I hope that the film lives up to the hype and expectations that have been placed on it, given the amount of coverage it's received. Anything less than a 5* review will seem like a disappointment.

(To be fair to the magazine though, this could be an extreme example of what I consider to be generally the correct approach. Give neutral / positive advanced coverage, allow filmmakers to put their cases across, while reserving the right to criticise the end product if it's no good. A past example would be something like Van Helsing, where Empire received lots of on-set access and there was a hefty cover and main feature a few years ago. Since the actual film was hopeless, it still received the review it deserved. Even in the current magazine, there's an enjoyable interview with Paul Rudd and Steve Carell, where they're plugging a film that's negatively reviewed elsewhere in the same issue. To me this demonstrates journalistic integrity.)

However, Scott Pilgrim seems to me to have had a disproportionate amount of enthusiastic coverage. The flipside naturally is that those who are looking forward to it must think it's great. Fair enough that the magazine enjoys a good relationship with Edgar Wright, and naturally makes good use of access to his sets. But, for what it's worth (correct me if I'm wrong) Scott Pilgrim is basically an American film that happens to have a British director. How's it really different than any other American summer film? It'll stand or fall on US box office returns, whether it's any good or not, and no amount of praise from Empire is going to change that. (Kick-Ass's worldwide box office of only $96 million would suggest that graphic novel adaptations don't have a huge amount of mass appeal. Not that I want to open another debate on quality vs financial returns, but Scott Pilgrim to me is a film that will have a smallish but very passionate audience, rather than breaking records like a conventional blockbuster.)

For the record, I'm certainly not anti-Edgar Wright at all. I love Spaced and Hot Fuzz (although not Shaun Of The Dead). I just think that his film has been given far too much coverage in the magazine, that's all. Hopefully some of you out there will agree? Am I the only person who groans when, on opening a new issue of Empire, I'm confronted by more photos of Michael Cera looking like he does in every other film, or Brandon Routh wearing a truly awful costume and wig?!

Rant over, flame away..."

Belfast, Belfast, Belfast... where do I begin?

Scott Pilgrim Vs The World is a film we've been excited about for a long time. We're delighted that, in our opinion, the film justifies that excitement. But you know from past experience that any implication that we give films favourable reviews in exchange for access will be stomped on immediately. To quote a great man, I am Godzilla, you are Japan. That does not happen, and never will happen.

Indeed, however the cosy relationship between Empire magazine and the Wright/Pegg juggernaut is clear to anyone who peruses any issue of Empire from the last few years. Favourable reviews for access it may not be, but I think the suspicion that you're giving positive press to your mates is perfectly reasonable.

Sadly it looks like whilst the critics liked it the US audience has stayed away. A 10.5m opening weekend at 3,000 locations is a rather poor showing for a film which has had as much publicity as this one. It has made over a million less than Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist made on it's opening weekend (although that is a great film itself but was made for a lot less and had less marketing). It looks like unless word of mouth kicks in it is going to be viewed a flop in the US market and quite a few studios tend to focus on that market so adventurous films such as this appears to be off the agenda for the forseeable future.

Completely agree. I dont post much here anymore either, but still buy the magazine and came back to see how people were taking the saturation coverage. Glad to see Im not the only one bemused by this hype, and I could have predicted the 5 star review months back. I liked Spaced, loved Hot Fuzz and SOTD but the trailers for this left me cold.

I think this will be filed under '4/5 star reviews after Empire bought into the hype' along with Attack of the Clones and Snakes On A Plane.

I'll wait for the DVD.

So you haven't actually seen the film yet?

And Snakes on a Plane was fun.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I though Snakes on a Plane was another hyped up one trick pony to be honest

_____________________________

"Manchester United is the club, it is football. A culture of the “beau jeu”, a philosophy that has been existing for years. How to win with class. I am still madly in love with it." Eric Cantona

I'm not moaning about something I haven't seen, I'm annoyed at the sycophantic coverage that has gone beyond saturation point.

My point is that given all the hype Empire generated prior to the review, the review itself is unsurprising

As I said for the film itself, I'll probably give it ago on DVD.

What sycophanic coverage?

The movie is directed by a guy who has made some of the more successful films from the UK in recent years, not to mention one of the great comedy series of the last decade. It is based on a comic book which will likely appeal to the Empire readership, and at the same time isn't a huge blockbuster. You don;t think the readership would or should be excited for this? And everyone leave aside their own personal "overrated" views. Just because YOU don't like Wright, doesn't detract from the fact he has made some very popular stuff.

So now we are complaining that a non-blockbuster movie is getting attention in the magazine, when most months people are falling over themselves to say that Empire only puts movies which cost 100 million + on the front cover.

Lets look at this months issue shall we?

Fifteen Pages to upcoming genre films Nine Pages to Scott Pilgirm Eight Pages to a Henry Hill interview Seven Pages about the Godfather Production Five Pages to a interview with the Fox studio Four Pages to Africa United Four pages to Tyler Perry Four pages to Burke and Hare Four Pages to Dinner for Schmucks

Pilgrim didn't even get the biggest article this month, and pretty much had the standard number of pages devoted to the big release of the month.

And again, Empire has a strong relationship with Lucasfilm, and devoted EIGHTY SIX pages to the Phantom Meance. That still wasn't enough to give the movie five stars in the magazine.

But I'm sure you are right....

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

I originally posted the stuff below in the Empire magazine forum, because I wanted to comment specifically on the amount of coverage Scott Pilgrim has received. However, nobody commented there and it was suggested by a mod that I post here instead. So here it is, ever so lightly edited and now with the not at all surprising discovery that, as predicted, it's received a 5* review! My thoughts on the film remain unchanged, and with one addition - come on Edgar Wright, let's see you drop the zeitgeist-surfing, pop-culture referencing, homaging approach and try something different!

"I haven't posted, or even looked at this board, for a few years, although I've continued to read the magazine every month. However, I've decided to come back - probably only for one post because I'll end getting flamed off again! This is purely a personal view, so bear with me. If you disagree, fair enough.

Scott Pilgrim doesn't interest me at all. In fact everything I've read and seen about it indicates an end product that will be utter garbage - juvenile, puerile drivel of the highest order - a glorified video game (even down to 'Level Complete' etc). I almost think it's trying too hard to be cool - obscure comic book adaptation, Beck, Nigel Godrich etc handling the music, Michael Cera playing a sword-wielding variant of his traditional indie slacker. (Anna Kendrick, Chris Evans, why are you associated with this nonsense?!) There also doesn't seem to be any particular surprises in store either - surely there can be no other outcome than Scott prevailing against Ramona's evil ex-partners and thereby winning 'the game' / the girl? I'm sure I'm not alone in this view. I'll not go and see it when it's released.

But my point here is the amount of coverage that Empire has devoted to this film over the last year, particularly in the latest issue - the cover, a lengthy and adoring main feature, a soundtrack review, plugs for merchandise, an advert on the back cover. All I can say is that, for Empire's sake, I hope that the film lives up to the hype and expectations that have been placed on it, given the amount of coverage it's received. Anything less than a 5* review will seem like a disappointment.

(To be fair to the magazine though, this could be an extreme example of what I consider to be generally the correct approach. Give neutral / positive advanced coverage, allow filmmakers to put their cases across, while reserving the right to criticise the end product if it's no good. A past example would be something like Van Helsing, where Empire received lots of on-set access and there was a hefty cover and main feature a few years ago. Since the actual film was hopeless, it still received the review it deserved. Even in the current magazine, there's an enjoyable interview with Paul Rudd and Steve Carell, where they're plugging a film that's negatively reviewed elsewhere in the same issue. To me this demonstrates journalistic integrity.)

However, Scott Pilgrim seems to me to have had a disproportionate amount of enthusiastic coverage. The flipside naturally is that those who are looking forward to it must think it's great. Fair enough that the magazine enjoys a good relationship with Edgar Wright, and naturally makes good use of access to his sets. But, for what it's worth (correct me if I'm wrong) Scott Pilgrim is basically an American film that happens to have a British director. How's it really different than any other American summer film? It'll stand or fall on US box office returns, whether it's any good or not, and no amount of praise from Empire is going to change that. (Kick-Ass's worldwide box office of only $96 million would suggest that graphic novel adaptations don't have a huge amount of mass appeal. Not that I want to open another debate on quality vs financial returns, but Scott Pilgrim to me is a film that will have a smallish but very passionate audience, rather than breaking records like a conventional blockbuster.)

For the record, I'm certainly not anti-Edgar Wright at all. I love Spaced and Hot Fuzz (although not Shaun Of The Dead). I just think that his film has been given far too much coverage in the magazine, that's all. Hopefully some of you out there will agree? Am I the only person who groans when, on opening a new issue of Empire, I'm confronted by more photos of Michael Cera looking like he does in every other film, or Brandon Routh wearing a truly awful costume and wig?!

Rant over, flame away..."

Belfast, Belfast, Belfast... where do I begin?

Scott Pilgrim Vs The World is a film we've been excited about for a long time. We're delighted that, in our opinion, the film justifies that excitement. But you know from past experience that any implication that we give films favourable reviews in exchange for access will be stomped on immediately. To quote a great man, I am Godzilla, you are Japan. That does not happen, and never will happen.

Indeed, however the cosy relationship between Empire magazine and the Wright/Pegg juggernaut is clear to anyone who peruses any issue of Empire from the last few years. Favourable reviews for access it may not be, but I think the suspicion that you're giving positive press to your mates is perfectly reasonable.

Couple of things: 1:I haven't seen the film,and like the Inception thread,it is really silly to make statements about any film on that basis. 2:As regards Empire being biased,i think that is a bit harsh.There have been regular articles/interviews with many people over the years that i thought were populist(it's quite funny if you ever get out the collection and look back a few years).But is that not the point to a degree? The Star Wars reviews/ratings were wrong,but that's film,it doesn't require a conspiracy theory

I don't think I'll be seeing Scott Pilgrim. Its bound to bring back the crushing disappointment I felt when watching The Smashing Pumpkins "1979” video and realising that it wasn't, in fact, one of those horrific public service ads about seat-belt neglect.

I don't bemoan the coverage though. You can't really. I think I'm just at that age where the only decent use of the word "hip” is when it's followed by "replacement”. Hum-bug and all that.

That is the thing though - most of the videogame references for instance are from games from the early 90s. The target audience for a lot of the movie are people in their 20s and 30s who grew up with an NES or Mega Drive.

If Speedball 2 and Cannon Fodder aren't referenced then this film is a crock of shit...

Splatterhouse? Super Smash TV? After Burner?!!!!

I'll wheel out the NES SuperScope on its punk ass!

_____________________________

http://dereksdontrunfilms.blogspot.co.uk/

"You bailed out a Jamaican street named Monkey the other day, I want him. This other piece of shit, Screwface, I want him. I know you're a scumbag and a puke, I don't mind that, but give me what I need and I'll leave here a nice guy. If you don't, I'm gonna fuck you up. "

Thank goodness, after looking at what poor Helen had to review in the recent issue, she did get to talk Pilgrim, although saying it's target market is more late 20's is odd, I'm barely 20 and it resonated plenty with me.

Edgar knocked it out of the park, a glorious hive of activity, comedy, wit, insanity, amazing visuals.

You know what, I can't say much, I can just say this is a perfect movie.

OH GOD. An actual review.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978 There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.